Shasta-Trinity National Forest, California; Pettijohn LSR Habitat Improvement and Fuels Reduction Project, 77599-77601 [E8-30053]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 245 (Friday, December 19, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77599-77601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-30053]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Shasta-Trinity National Forest, California; Pettijohn LSR Habitat 
Improvement and Fuels Reduction Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Shasta-Trinity National Forest (STNF) will prepare an 
environmental impact statement (EIS) to document and publicly disclose 
the environmental effects of implementing a hazardous fuels reduction 
project on approximately 3200 acres of National Forest System lands. 
Located within an area known as the Pettijohn portion of the Clear 
Creek Late Successional Reserve (LSR) the proposed project would 
provide the LSR with enhanced protection from catastrophic wildfire, 
increased fire fighter safety and habitat improvement for wildlife 
species associated with old-growth ecosystems, including the Threatened 
northern spotted owl, Strix occidentalis caurina. The proposal includes 
thinning trees from below in overcrowded stands and in proposed Fuel 
Management Zones (FMZs). Most thinning would be accomplished through 
commercial timber harvest of sawtimber and biomass (chips). Road 
decommissioning is proposed on approximately 2.3 miles of road and road 
reconstruction is proposed on approximately 2 miles of existing roads 
to improve drainage and reduce erosion. No new system roads would be 
constructed. The Pettijohn LSR Habitat Improvement and Fuels Reduction 
Project is located south of Trinity Lake near the communities of 
Lewiston and Weaverville, California in sections 5-9, 16-21, 28, 32, 
and 33 in T34N, R8W; sections 48, 17, and 18 in T33N, R8W; and sections 
1, 2, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 24 in T34N, R9W (Mt. Diablo Meridian).

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received 
by no later than 30 days from date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. The draft environmental impact statement is expected 
in May 2009 and the final environmental impact statement is expected in 
November 2009.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Pettijohn Project c/o Thomas A. 
Quinn, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Weaverville Ranger District, 
P.O. Box 1190, Weaverville, CA 96093, (530) 623-1758. Comments may also 
be sent via e-mail to: comments-pacificsouthwest-shasta-
trinity@fs.fed.us.
    Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names 
and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record 
for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be 
accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide 
the respondent with standing to appeal the subsequent decision.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas A. Quinn, Wildlife Biologist, 
Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Weaverville Ranger District, P.O. Box 
1190, Weaverville, CA 96093, (530) 623-1758, taquinn@fs.fed.us.
    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) 
may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose of the proposed action is to enhance and protect 
habitat for wildlife species associated with old-growth forest 
ecosystems, particularly the northern spotted owl (NSO) in the Clear 
Creek LSR.
    The Clear Creek LSR is currently dominated by dense, mature 
(approximately 80 to 110 years old) conifer forest and contains less 
than the desired amount of old-growth habitat. A combination of 
historic logging and fire suppression has resulted in dense forests, 
tree species compositions, age-class structures and fuel conditions 
that are highly conducive to crown fires and reduced fire suppression 
effectiveness. The growth of potential and existing large tree 
components has been slowed and their natural resistance to mortality 
from pathogens, insects and fire has been endangered as a result of 
dense forest conditions. Because of existing ladder fuels, there is a 
high probability that a fire start within or adjacent to the project 
area would result in the loss of existing and developing old-growth 
habitat in the LSR. Because of fuels conditions, the use of prescribed 
fire by itself to achieve lower fuel loading is currently not safe or 
feasible.
    Coordinated analyses conducted by the Forest Service and the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that current habitat conditions in 
the Clear Creek LSR are insufficient to maintain the 20 pairs of 
breeding owls established in the northern spotted owl conservation 
strategy. The Clear Creek LSR Assessment identifies thinning 
overstocked young to mature conifer stands as a high priority treatment 
for managing forests within the LSR. Thinning stands and implementing 
fuel treatments would reduce fire hazard and risk, accelerate growth, 
and help to enhance and protect developing and existing large tree 
components within LSR forest stands.
    The project is authorized under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act 
of 2003

[[Page 77600]]

(HFRA) for projects with a defined purpose of enhancing the protection 
of NSO and NSO critical habitat from catastrophic wildland fire. The 
proposed project is also being developed within the over-arching 
recommendations of the Trinity County Community Wildfire Protection 
Plan.

Proposed Action

    The proposed action would meet the purpose and need by thinning 
from below in mature forests and thinning from below to create fuel 
management zones (FMZs) at strategic locations where they will tie in 
with existing FMZs. Fuels reduction treatments within the FMZs would 
help to reduce fire risk and hazard and provide for fire fighter 
safety. The proposed action also includes prescribed burning on 
approximately 101 acres and hand fuels treatment on approximately 11 
acres to reduce fire risk in high-use areas. Road decommissioning is 
proposed on 2.3 miles to reduce road densities.
    1. Thinning From Below: The proposed thinning would be applied on 
approximately 1,155 acres of overly dense conifer stands to accelerate 
the development of desired old-growth characteristics. The thinning 
would also decrease fuel levels to reduce the risk of losing these and 
adjacent stands to crown fires. The largest and healthiest trees, 
including trees with large cavities and other types of deformities 
(decadence) and viable hardwoods, would be retained. A sufficient 
number of trees would be removed to maintain or increase growth rates 
of the mature trees, reduce competition for the largest/oldest trees 
prolonging their persistence in the stands, and remove fuel ladders to 
a level where ground fires are less likely to climb to the upper 
canopy. Trees marked for removal will start with the smallest, least 
healthy conifers progressively including larger trees until the 
existing 70 to 90+ percent canopy cover is reduced to approximately 40 
to 60 percent to make more water, nutrients, sunlight and growing space 
available to the remaining trees (conifers as well as hardwoods). 
Approximately 123 acres of Riparian Reserve (RR) are included in 
proposed thinning units; within RR the canopy would not be reduced 
below 60 percent. Biological legacies such as large/old green trees and 
other old-growth structural components (large snags, logs, viable 
hardwoods, etc.) would be retained within each thinning unit to provide 
these habitat components as the stand develops. Stands within 150 feet 
of roads identified as FMZ are included in proposed thinning units. To 
improve effectiveness of FMZs, the preliminary proposed action includes 
removing hazard trees within portions of thinning units directly 
adjacent to FMZ networks (about 149 acres of the total 1,155 acres 
proposed for thinning).
    2. FMZ Treatments: A network of FMZs is proposed on approximately 
1,995 acres to support the effectiveness and safety of future fire 
suppression, and/or prescribed fire. They would provide a potential 
point of control for future fire occurrence. These linear FMZs range 
from 300 feet wide (roadside) to approximately 600 or 1,200 feet wide 
(expanded) and are centered along approximately 36 miles of 
strategically located roads at the perimeter of the fireshed and within 
the LSR. Within overstocked stands adjacent to the identified roads 
within FMZ, small diameter understory (fuel ladder) trees (<11'' 
diameter at breast height (DBH)) would be reduced to roughly a 20 foot 
spacing and live and dead hazardous trees that could pose a danger to 
fire fighters would be removed. The perimeter FMZs tie in with roadside 
fuels projects already completed along State Highway 3 and County Road 
204.
    3. Fuel Reduction in High Risk Areas: The proposed action includes 
prescribed burning of dense brush surrounding a popular fishing access 
area at the east edge of the project area (approximately 101 acres), 
and hand thinning/piling/burning around a public rest area at the west 
edge of the project area along State Highway 3 (approximately 11 
acres). Treatment of these areas would improve the effectiveness of the 
FMZ.
    4. Road Decommissioning: The Roads Analysis Process (RAP) completed 
for the Pettijohn LSR Project area identified approximately 2.3 miles 
of little-used roads that are having negative effects on fish and water 
quality, or are disproportionately difficult to maintain. 
Decommissioning involves removing culverts, ripping and out-sloping 
road surfaces, and closure. The goal is to control surface runoff, 
erosion, and mass failure while making the road unavailable for future 
use.
    5. Landing Construction: Up to an estimated maximum 39 temporary 
landings would be constructed, however, existing landings in the 
project area are preferred and would be reused whenever possible. No 
trees greater than 24 inches DBH would be cut for landings. New 
landings will not be constructed within Riparian Reserves (RR). 
Landings that currently exist in RR will be reused where they would 
require less ground disturbance than new construction.

Responsible Official

    J. Sharon Heywood, Forest Supervisor, Shasta-Trinity National 
Forest.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The Forest Supervisor will decide whether to implement the proposed 
action, take an alternative action that meets the purpose and need or 
take no action. The decision may include a non-significant amendment to 
modify the Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan on page 4-
37 ``Guidelines to Reduce Risks of Large-Scale Disturbance'' by adding 
the following statement: ``For the Pettijohn LSR Project, harvest is 
allowed within stands over 80 years old.''

Preliminary Issues

    Preliminary issues raised during the collaboration process included 
snag retention, cutting trees over 80 years old, equipment crossing of 
RR, and the non-significant plan amendment.

Scoping Process and Comment Requested

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process for the 
Pettijohn LSR Project, which will guide the development of the 
environmental impact statement. The project is included in the Shasta-
Trinity National Forest's quarterly schedule of proposed actions 
(SOPA). Information on the proposed action will also be posted on the 
forest website at: https://www.fs.fed.us/rS/shastatrinity/projects/trmu-
projects.shtml. Comments submitted during this scoping process should 
be in writing and should be specific to the proposed action. The 
comments should describe as clearly and completely as possible any 
issues the conmentor has with the proposal. The scoping process 
includes:
    (a) Identifying potential issues.
    (b) Identifying issues to be analyzed in depth.
    (c) Eliminating non-significant issues or those previously covered 
by a relevant previous environmental analysis.
    (d) Exploring additional alternatives.
    (e) Identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed 
action and alternatives. It is important that reviewers provide their 
comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the 
agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, 
comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period 
and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions. 
The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a

[[Page 77601]]

reviewer's ability to participate in subsequent administrative appeal 
or judicial review.

HFRA Process

    During October and November, 2008 the STNF sent out letters and 
notices requesting collaboration and inviting the public, federal, 
state and local agencies, tribes and non governmental organizations to 
participate in an HFRA meeting for the Proposed Action. The HFRA 
meeting was held November 12, 2008 at the Community Center in Lewiston, 
CA. The notice for the meeting was published in The Trinity Journal, 
Weaverville's weekly local newspaper and The Record Searchlight, the 
newspaper of record, located in Redding, CA. The notices were published 
in both papers on October 21st and November 2008. Comments and 
suggestions provided by persons at the meeting and submitted by persons 
who were unable to attend the meeting were used, in part, to design the 
Proposed Action. The project is consistent with the HFRA 2003, which 
contains provisions to expedite hazardous fuels reduction and forest 
restoration projects on federal lands that are at risk to wildland fire 
or insect and disease epidemics. Projects authorized under HFRA are 
defined under Section 102(a)(5)(B) of the act and are designed to 
actively involve the public in reducing the risk of catastrophic fire 
to communities and protecting threatened and endangered species 
habitat.
    A USDA Forest Service interdisciplinary team designed a preliminary 
proposed action. Further collaborative efforts in conjunction with 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes may result in 
further modifications to this proposed action. If significant issues 
are raised that cannot be addressed by modifying the proposed action, 
the Forest may develop other action alternatives.
    Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent 
Environmental Review: A draft environmental impact statement will be 
prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental 
impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental 
Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal 
Register.
    The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important 
to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public 
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of 
draft environmental impact statements must structure their 
participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is 
meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and 
contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 
553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the 
draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised 
until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may 
be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 
1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 
F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, 
it is very important that those interested in this proposed action 
participate by the close of the 45 day comment period so that 
substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest 
Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to 
them in the final environmental impact statement.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft 
environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is 
also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the 
draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft 
environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives 
formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer 
to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing 
the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 
40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 
1909.15, Section 21)

    Dated: December 11, 2008.
J. Sharon Heywood,
Forest Supervisor, Shasta-Trinity National Forest.
 [FR Doc. E8-30053 Filed 12-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M